Tools
CD4 Cell Count and HIV
Introduction
For decades, the CD4 cell count measurement has been used to understand the progression of HIV infection. HIV is a fatal infection that targets and destroys CD4 T lymphocytes in the peripheral blood. CD4 T lymphocytes are a part of human T-lymphocyte cells produced in the bone marrow and eventually mature in the thymus. These cells play a critical role in the immune system by circulating throughout the body to fight against bacteria, viruses, and other organisms. If HIV goes untreated, the virus enters the cell and replicates, which eventually causes CD4 cells to die. The remaining infected cells release virions, which infect other cells, leading to the progression of the disease. The loss of CD4 T lymphocytes results in the inability to have a proper immune response.[1][2]
CD4 cell count is a laboratory test that measures the number of CD4 T cells. The normal range is between 500 to 1500 cells/mm3. Clinicians use this test to monitor the destruction of CD4 cells, and it also monitors the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy. The CD4 cell count is now the most reliable indicator of disease progression and is used to stage disease and guide medical therapy.[3][4] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a key indication for diagnosing AIDS is when the CD4 cell count drops below 200 cells/mm3. The decline of CD4 T cells can lead to opportunistic infections and increase mortality.[5]
Specimen Requirements and Procedure
Register For Free And Read The Full Article
Search engine and full access to all medical articles- 10 free questions in your specialty
- Free CME/CE Activities
- Free daily question in your email
- Save favorite articles to your dashboard
- Emails offering discounts
Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care
Specimen Requirements and Procedure
The measurement of CD4+ counts requires careful collection and handling of blood specimens to ensure accurate results. The blood sample is obtained through a standard venipuncture procedure, typically from a vein in the arm, and collected in a lavender-top tube containing EDTA. This anticoagulant prevents clotting and preserves blood cells for analysis.[6] Accurate labeling of tubes is essential and should encompass the patient's complete identification details, collection date and time, age, gender, and the name or initials of the collector. This comprehensive information not only ensures traceability but also significantly reduces the risk of errors. In addition, using a standardized labeling format can further enhance clarity and consistency in sample management. Immediately after collection, the tube must be gently inverted 6 to 8 times to mix the blood with the EDTA, preventing clot formation that could compromise test accuracy.[7]
The sample should then be transported and handled following established guidelines, such as those set by the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the International Air Transport Association dangerous goods regulations, especially when handling potentially HIV-infected specimens.[8]
The integrity of the specimen must be assessed immediately upon arrival by inspecting the tube and its contents. If the specimen feels hot or cold to the touch but shows no visible signs of hemolysis or freezing, it should be processed with the temperature condition noted on both the worksheet and the report form. Conversely, if the blood is hemolyzed, frozen, or contains visible clots, the specimen must be rejected, and a new sample should be requested.[9]
Fasting is not required for this test; however, it is essential to address the patient's concerns and provide emotional support by preparing them for the potential implications of the results. Ensuring informed consent and maintaining clear communication before testing are critical components of patient care.[10]
Testing Procedures
Several techniques are available to calculate the absolute number of CD4 T lymphocytes, with immunofluorescence analysis by flow cytometry being the gold standard. Flow cytometry uses fluorochrome label probes that bind to specific components of the cells. For CD4 cell counts, the CD4 T lymphocytes are stained with fluorescent labels that are detectable in the flow cytometer. Monoclonal antibodies bind to the CD4 receptor on the surface of T cells. The relative percentage of cells expressing the receptor on its surface is obtained using a flow cytometer. The results are reported as CD4 percentages, and the absolute number is obtained by multiplying the percentage and the total white cell count. For example, a CD4 percentage greater than 29% is equivalent to an absolute CD4 cell count greater than 500 cells/mm3, and a percentage lower than 14% is equivalent to an absolute CD4 count lower than 200 cells/mm3.[11][12]
Alternative systems manufactured by various companies are available options. Knowing which technique is being used is crucial, as absolute count numbers may differ. Caution is necessary when analyzing results from different methods.
Interfering Factors
Physicians and patients should be aware that certain factors may cause a change in CD4 cell count. Changes in the total white blood cell count count directly impact the absolute CD4 count. Many factors, including circadian variation, influence the absolute count of lymphocytes.[4] Studies have shown that CD4 count is typically lower in the morning and increases throughout the day.[13] Acute infections, such as influenza, pneumonia, hepatitis B, cytomegalovirus, and chemotherapy, may lead to a decrease in CD4 cell count.[14] Stress and fatigue can also interfere with results. Interestingly, corticosteroids may either increase or decrease the levels of CD4 cells. Single doses of steroids may lead to a decline in the absolute value. On the other hand, chronic steroid use may lead to an elevated count. Other factors that should merit consideration are alcohol, nicotine, and pregnancy, as they also may alter the absolute CD4 count.[15]
The factors interfering with CD4 T lymphocytes may cause the percentage and absolute CD4 cell count to vary. The CD4 cell percentage has less variation than the absolute number, so it is sometimes preferable. If the results are significantly different, and the patient may require medical intervention, results require confirmation within 3 to 6 months.[16]
Results, Reporting, and Critical Findings
The normal CD4 count range is 500 to 1500 cells/mm3. If a patient is left untreated, CD4 levels can drop below 200 cells/mm3, which is an indication of an AIDS diagnosis. The broad range in the normal value is the product of 3 variables—the white blood cell count, the percentage of lymphocytes, and the percentage of lymphocytes expressing the CD4 receptor.[17][18]
Clinical Significance
The CD4 count is used to evaluate the progression of HIV and should be measured on all patients at the time of their initial HIV diagnosis. The Public Health Service recommends that all HIV-positive patients should be tested for CD4 every 3 to 6 months. Results can offer insight into the possible diagnosis of AIDS and the risk of opportunistic infections. In addition, the test is an indicator of treatment failure. Antiretroviral therapy should commence before CD4 levels are below 200 cells/mm3, as complications are higher in this population. After starting antiretroviral therapy, CD4 levels should be monitored every 3 to 6 months to assess the response to treatment. If the response is appropriate, the CD4 count can be rechecked every 6 to 12 months. Successful treatment is associated with an increase in CD4 count and adherence to therapy. With antiretroviral therapy, CD4 levels may increase by 100 to 150 cells/mm3 within the first year of treatment.[19][20]
Quality Control and Lab Safety
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of CD4+ T-lymphocyte test results within individual laboratories and to facilitate comparability across different laboratories, it is essential to implement standardized testing methods and comprehensive guidelines for quality control and quality assurance.[21] The laboratory must monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies and procedures throughout all testing phases, including methods for specimen collection, handling, transportation, identification, processing, and storage. In addition, attention must be given to test request and report forms, quality control protocols for instruments and reagents, accurate review and reporting of results, and employee training.[22] High-quality training can be achieved through basic instruction from flow cytometer manufacturers and advanced hands-on workshops for operators and supervisors.
Immunophenotyping requires rigorous quality control measures to guarantee both accuracy and reliability. Negative (isotype) reagent controls are crucial in distinguishing nonspecific binding from specific antibody-target interactions. These controls use antibodies that lack specificity for human antigens but share the same isotype and fluorochrome as the test reagents, enabling the identification of background signals. Positive methodological controls validate specimen preparation and processing by analyzing whole blood from a control donor and comparing the results against established normal ranges. In addition, positive controls for testing reagents assess labeling efficiency and reagent functionality by comparing new lots to previously validated ones.[23]
Daily instrument quality control is critical for the consistent and accurate performance of the flow cytometer. One key aspect of daily quality control is the alignment of optics to optimize peak brightness, using stable calibration materials such as fluorochrome-labeled microbeads. These materials ensure precise alignment of calibration particles with the laser beam and collection lens. Stream-in-air flow cytometers require daily alignment, whereas stream-in-cuvette models should follow manufacturer guidelines.[24] In addition, daily standardization tasks involve the use of stable materials to maintain consistent scatter and fluorescence peak positioning. Retaining these standardization settings is crucial for preserving sensitivity and spectral compensation. Sensitivity assessments evaluate the cytometer's ability to distinguish dim peaks from autofluorescence by analyzing materials with low-level fluorescence, ensuring proper peak separation.[25]
In the event of instrument issues or servicing, all 4 procedures, including alignment, calibration, sensitivity checks, and compensation, must be repeated. Comprehensive logs of settings, peak channels, and coefficient of variation values should be maintained to monitor performance and re-establish fluorescence levels when calibration materials or bead lots are replaced.[26]
In addition to compliance with internal quality control and calibration procedures, laboratories performing CD4 testing must also demonstrate satisfactory performance by participating in external quality assessment programs. These programs provide blinded specimens for analysis, allowing laboratories to compare their results against reference standards or peer groups. This process helps identify errors, uncover procedural inconsistencies, and ensure the accuracy of testing practices.[27]
The laboratory policies and procedures should be reviewed and revised regularly, either as needed or at predefined intervals, to ensure adherence to the quality assurance program. Any issues identified during quality assurance reviews should be communicated to all relevant staff, along with the corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence.[28]
Universal precautions must be strictly adhered to when handling all specimens to ensure safety and minimize the risk of contamination or exposure to hazardous materials. Establishing comprehensive safety protocols is essential. Laboratory personnel should always wear appropriate protective gear, including laboratory coats and gloves, during the processing and analysis of specimens. Pipetting by mouth must be strictly avoided; safety pipetting devices should be used to prevent accidental ingestion or exposure.[29] In addition, needles should never be recapped and must be disposed of in puncture-proof containers to mitigate the risk of needlestick injuries.[30] Specimens should be handled within class I or II biological safety cabinets to provide a controlled environment that protects the user and the samples from contamination.[31]
Safety carriers should be used when centrifuging specimens to prevent spills and exposure to aerosols. After handling specimens, thorough handwashing with soap and water is necessary to remove potential contaminants.[32] For stream-in-air flow cytometers, adhering to manufacturer guidelines is crucial to minimize the risk of aerosol or droplet exposure during operation. In addition, waste generated by the flow cytometer should be disinfected by adding undiluted household bleach (5% sodium hypochlorite) to the waste containers to achieve a final concentration of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite. This disinfection process can be accomplished by diluting the bleach at a ratio of 1:10 (1 part bleach to 9 parts water) for effective decontamination. These measures help ensure a safe laboratory environment while preserving the quality of the specimens under analysis.[23]
Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes
The CD4 count is a critical laboratory parameter for assessing immunosuppressed patients, especially those with HIV. Nurse practitioners, primary care physicians, and other healthcare providers should be familiar with the normal range of CD4 counts, typically between 500 to 1500 cells/mm³, to recognize deviations indicative of immunosuppression.
CD4 testing is recommended for all patients at the time of HIV diagnosis to establish a baseline and assess the degree of immune dysfunction. According to the Public Health Service, HIV-positive patients should undergo regular CD4 monitoring every 3 to 6 months to track disease progression and evaluate the risk of opportunistic infections. CD4 counts below 200 cells/mm³ are a defining criterion for an AIDS diagnosis and indicate a significantly elevated risk for life-threatening infections and malignancies. Beyond its diagnostic value, the CD4 count is also a marker of treatment success or failure.
References
Nacher M, Huber F, Adriouch L, Djossou F, Adenis A, Couppié P. Temporal trend of the proportion of patients presenting with advanced HIV in French Guiana: stuck on the asymptote? BMC research notes. 2018 Nov 26:11(1):831. doi: 10.1186/s13104-018-3944-y. Epub 2018 Nov 26 [PubMed PMID: 30477588]
Carr A, Richardson R, Liu Z. Success and failure of initial antiretroviral therapy in adults: an updated systematic review. AIDS (London, England). 2019 Mar 1:33(3):443-453. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002077. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30475265]
Level 1 (high-level) evidenceGraham NM, Park LP, Piantadosi S, Phair JP, Mellors J, Fahey JL, Saah AJ. Prognostic value of combined response markers among human immunodeficiency virus-infected persons: possible aid in the decision to change zidovudine monotherapy. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 1995 Feb:20(2):352-62 [PubMed PMID: 7742442]
Li R, Duffee D, Gbadamosi-Akindele MF. CD4 Count. StatPearls. 2025 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 29262137]
Vajpayee M, Kaushik S, Sreenivas V, Wig N, Seth P. CDC staging based on absolute CD4 count and CD4 percentage in an HIV-1-infected Indian population: treatment implications. Clinical and experimental immunology. 2005 Sep:141(3):485-90 [PubMed PMID: 16045738]
Fajardo E, Metcalf C, Mbofana E, van Vyve C, Munyaradzi D, Simons S, Kuhudzayi M, Bygrave H. Opportunities to improve storage and transportation of blood specimens for CD4 testing in a rural district in Zimbabwe using BD vacutainer CD4 stabilization tubes: a stability and diagnostic accuracy study. BMC infectious diseases. 2014 Oct 22:14():553. doi: 10.1186/s12879-014-0553-9. Epub 2014 Oct 22 [PubMed PMID: 25330812]
Simundic AM, Bölenius K, Cadamuro J, Church S, Cornes MP, van Dongen-Lases EC, Eker P, Erdeljanovic T, Grankvist K, Guimaraes JT, Hoke R, Ibarz M, Ivanov H, Kovalevskaya S, Kristensen GBB, Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, von Meyer A, Nybo M, De la Salle B, Seipelt C, Sumarac Z, Vermeersch P, Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE), of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and Latin American Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE-LATAM) of the Latin America Confederation of Clinical Biochemistry (COLABIOCLI). Joint EFLM-COLABIOCLI Recommendation for venous blood sampling. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. 2018 Nov 27:56(12):2015-2038. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2018-0602. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30004902]
Cornish NE, Anderson NL, Arambula DG, Arduino MJ, Bryan A, Burton NC, Chen B, Dickson BA, Giri JG, Griffith NK, Pentella MA, Salerno RM, Sandhu P, Snyder JW, Tormey CA, Wagar EA, Weirich EG, Campbell S. Clinical Laboratory Biosafety Gaps: Lessons Learned from Past Outbreaks Reveal a Path to a Safer Future. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2021 Jun 16:34(3):e0012618. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00126-18. Epub 2021 Jun 9 [PubMed PMID: 34105993]
Wan Azman WN, Omar J, Koon TS, Tuan Ismail TS. Hemolyzed Specimens: Major Challenge for Identifying and Rejecting Specimens in Clinical Laboratories. Oman medical journal. 2019 Mar:34(2):94-98. doi: 10.5001/omj.2019.19. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30918601]
Kackov S, Simundic AM, Gatti-Drnic A. Are patients well informed about the fasting requirements for laboratory blood testing? Biochemia medica. 2013:23(3):326-31 [PubMed PMID: 24266303]
Vogler IH, Alfieri DF, Gianjacomo HDB, Almeida ERD, Reiche EMV. Safety of monitoring antiretroviral therapy response in HIV-1 infection using CD4+ T cell count at long-term intervals. Cadernos de saude publica. 2018 Oct 22:34(10):e00009618. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00009618. Epub 2018 Oct 22 [PubMed PMID: 30365742]
Chan CK, Wong KH, Lee MP, Chan KC, Leung CC, Leung EC, Chan WK, Mak IK. Risk factors associated with 1-year mortality among patients with HIV-associated tuberculosis in areas with intermediate tuberculosis burden and low HIV prevalence. Hong Kong medical journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi. 2018 Oct:24(5):473-483. doi: 10.12809/hkmj187303. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30262675]
Montarroyos UR, Miranda-Filho DB, César CC, Souza WV, Lacerda HR, Albuquerque Mde F, Aguiar MF, Ximenes RA. Factors related to changes in CD4+ T-cell counts over time in patients living with HIV/AIDS: a multilevel analysis. PloS one. 2014:9(2):e84276. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084276. Epub 2014 Feb 5 [PubMed PMID: 24505247]
Guo Z, Zhang Z, Prajapati M, Li Y. Lymphopenia Caused by Virus Infections and the Mechanisms Beyond. Viruses. 2021 Sep 20:13(9):. doi: 10.3390/v13091876. Epub 2021 Sep 20 [PubMed PMID: 34578457]
Akinbami AA, Gbadegesin A, Ajibola SO, Uche EI, Dosunmu AO, Adediran A, Sobande A. Factors influencing CD4 cell count in HIV-positive pregnant women in a secondary health center in Lagos, Nigeria. HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.). 2015:7():115-8. doi: 10.2147/HIV.S80137. Epub 2015 Apr 10 [PubMed PMID: 25914558]
Hull MW, Rollet K, Odueyungbo A, Saeed S, Potter M, Cox J, Cooper C, Gill J, Klein MB, Canadian Co-infection Cohort Investigators. Factors associated with discordance between absolute CD4 cell count and CD4 cell percentage in patients coinfected with HIV and hepatitis C virus. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2012 Jun:54(12):1798-805. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis289. Epub 2012 Mar 28 [PubMed PMID: 22460964]
Schooley AL, Kamudumuli PS, Vangala S, Tseng CH, Soko C, Parent J, Phiri K, Jahn A, Namarika D, Hoffman RM. CD4 Variability in Malawi: Implications for Use of a CD4 Threshold of 500 Cells/mm(3) Versus Universal Eligibility for Antiretroviral Therapy. Open forum infectious diseases. 2016 Sep:3(3):ofw180 [PubMed PMID: 27704028]
Ying R, Granich RM, Gupta S, Williams BG. CD4 Cell Count: Declining Value for Antiretroviral Therapy Eligibility. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2016 Apr 15:62(8):1022-8. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ1224. Epub 2016 Jan 29 [PubMed PMID: 26826372]
Dosemane D, Kumar V, Madi D, Kanthila J. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection: Does Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Influence Ear Nose Throat Manifestations? Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India. 2018 Dec:70(4):555-558. doi: 10.1007/s12070-018-1420-6. Epub 2018 Jun 7 [PubMed PMID: 30464915]
Sadiq U, Shrestha U, Guzman N. Prevention of Opportunistic Infections in HIV/AIDS. StatPearls. 2024 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 30020717]
Stebbings R, Wang L, Sutherland J, Kammel M, Gaigalas AK, John M, Roemer B, Kuhne M, Schneider RJ, Braun M, Engel A, Dikshit DK, Abbasi F, Marti GE, Sassi MP, Revel L, Kim SK, Baradez MO, Lekishvili T, Marshall D, Whitby L, Jing W, Ost V, Vonsky M, Neukammer J. Quantification of cells with specific phenotypes I: determination of CD4+ cell count per microliter in reconstituted lyophilized human PBMC prelabeled with anti-CD4 FITC antibody. Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology. 2015 Mar:87(3):244-53. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.22614. Epub 2015 Feb 5 [PubMed PMID: 25655255]
Sciacovelli L, Padoan A, Aita A, Basso D, Plebani M. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: state-of-the-art, quality specifications and future strategies. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. 2023 Mar 28:61(4):688-695. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2022-1143. Epub 2023 Jan 23 [PubMed PMID: 36660807]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceCossarizza A, Chang HD, Radbruch A, Akdis M, Andrä I, Annunziato F, Bacher P, Barnaba V, Battistini L, Bauer WM, Baumgart S, Becher B, Beisker W, Berek C, Blanco A, Borsellino G, Boulais PE, Brinkman RR, Büscher M, Busch DH, Bushnell TP, Cao X, Cavani A, Chattopadhyay PK, Cheng Q, Chow S, Clerici M, Cooke A, Cosma A, Cosmi L, Cumano A, Dang VD, Davies D, De Biasi S, Del Zotto G, Della Bella S, Dellabona P, Deniz G, Dessing M, Diefenbach A, Di Santo J, Dieli F, Dolf A, Donnenberg VS, Dörner T, Ehrhardt GRA, Endl E, Engel P, Engelhardt B, Esser C, Everts B, Dreher A, Falk CS, Fehniger TA, Filby A, Fillatreau S, Follo M, Förster I, Foster J, Foulds GA, Frenette PS, Galbraith D, Garbi N, García-Godoy MD, Geginat J, Ghoreschi K, Gibellini L, Goettlinger C, Goodyear CS, Gori A, Grogan J, Gross M, Grützkau A, Grummitt D, Hahn J, Hammer Q, Hauser AE, Haviland DL, Hedley D, Herrera G, Herrmann M, Hiepe F, Holland T, Hombrink P, Houston JP, Hoyer BF, Huang B, Hunter CA, Iannone A, Jäck HM, Jávega B, Jonjic S, Juelke K, Jung S, Kaiser T, Kalina T, Keller B, Khan S, Kienhöfer D, Kroneis T, Kunkel D, Kurts C, Kvistborg P, Lannigan J, Lantz O, Larbi A, LeibundGut-Landmann S, Leipold MD, Levings MK, Litwin V, Liu Y, Lohoff M, Lombardi G, Lopez L, Lovett-Racke A, Lubberts E, Ludewig B, Lugli E, Maecker HT, Martrus G, Matarese G, Maueröder C, McGrath M, McInnes I, Mei HE, Melchers F, Melzer S, Mielenz D, Mills K, Mirrer D, Mjösberg J, Moore J, Moran B, Moretta A, Moretta L, Mosmann TR, Müller S, Müller W, Münz C, Multhoff G, Munoz LE, Murphy KM, Nakayama T, Nasi M, Neudörfl C, Nolan J, Nourshargh S, O'Connor JE, Ouyang W, Oxenius A, Palankar R, Panse I, Peterson P, Peth C, Petriz J, Philips D, Pickl W, Piconese S, Pinti M, Pockley AG, Podolska MJ, Pucillo C, Quataert SA, Radstake TRDJ, Rajwa B, Rebhahn JA, Recktenwald D, Remmerswaal EBM, Rezvani K, Rico LG, Robinson JP, Romagnani C, Rubartelli A, Ruckert B, Ruland J, Sakaguchi S, Sala-de-Oyanguren F, Samstag Y, Sanderson S, Sawitzki B, Scheffold A, Schiemann M, Schildberg F, Schimisky E, Schmid SA, Schmitt S, Schober K, Schüler T, Schulz AR, Schumacher T, Scotta C, Shankey TV, Shemer A, Simon AK, Spidlen J, Stall AM, Stark R, Stehle C, Stein M, Steinmetz T, Stockinger H, Takahama Y, Tarnok A, Tian Z, Toldi G, Tornack J, Traggiai E, Trotter J, Ulrich H, van der Braber M, van Lier RAW, Veldhoen M, Vento-Asturias S, Vieira P, Voehringer D, Volk HD, von Volkmann K, Waisman A, Walker R, Ward MD, Warnatz K, Warth S, Watson JV, Watzl C, Wegener L, Wiedemann A, Wienands J, Willimsky G, Wing J, Wurst P, Yu L, Yue A, Zhang Q, Zhao Y, Ziegler S, Zimmermann J. Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies. European journal of immunology. 2017 Oct:47(10):1584-1797. doi: 10.1002/eji.201646632. Epub [PubMed PMID: 29023707]
Perfetto SP, Ambrozak D, Nguyen R, Chattopadhyay PK, Roederer M. Quality assurance for polychromatic flow cytometry using a suite of calibration beads. Nature protocols. 2012 Dec:7(12):2067-79. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2012.126. Epub 2012 Nov 8 [PubMed PMID: 23138348]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceWang L, Hoffman RA. Standardization, Calibration, and Control in Flow Cytometry. Current protocols in cytometry. 2017 Jan 5:79():1.3.1-1.3.27. doi: 10.1002/cpcy.14. Epub 2017 Jan 5 [PubMed PMID: 28055116]
Kalina T, Flores-Montero J, van der Velden VH, Martin-Ayuso M, Böttcher S, Ritgen M, Almeida J, Lhermitte L, Asnafi V, Mendonça A, de Tute R, Cullen M, Sedek L, Vidriales MB, Pérez JJ, te Marvelde JG, Mejstrikova E, Hrusak O, Szczepański T, van Dongen JJ, Orfao A, EuroFlow Consortium (EU-FP6, LSHB-CT-2006-018708). EuroFlow standardization of flow cytometer instrument settings and immunophenotyping protocols. Leukemia. 2012 Sep:26(9):1986-2010. doi: 10.1038/leu.2012.122. Epub [PubMed PMID: 22948490]
Barnett D, Whitby L, Wong J, Louzao R, Reilly JT, Denny TN. VERITAS?: A time for VERIQAS™ and a new approach to training, education, and the quality assessment of CD4+ T lymphocyte counting (I). Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry. 2012 Mar:82(2):93-100. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.20624. Epub 2011 Oct 13 [PubMed PMID: 21998025]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceEzzelle J, Rodriguez-Chavez IR, Darden JM, Stirewalt M, Kunwar N, Hitchcock R, Walter T, D'Souza MP. Guidelines on good clinical laboratory practice: bridging operations between research and clinical research laboratories. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis. 2008 Jan 7:46(1):18-29 [PubMed PMID: 18037599]
Ta L, Gosa L, Nathanson DA. Biosafety and Biohazards: Understanding Biosafety Levels and Meeting Safety Requirements of a Biobank. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.). 2019:1897():213-225. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8935-5_19. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30539447]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceAnandadurai D, Praisie R, Venkateshvaran S, Nelson SB, Thulasiram M. Awareness, Perception, and Practice Regarding Needle-Stick Injury and Its Prevention Among Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Southern India. Cureus. 2024 Mar:16(3):e55820. doi: 10.7759/cureus.55820. Epub 2024 Mar 8 [PubMed PMID: 38590462]
Jagtap GA, Badge A, Kohale MG, Wankhade RS. The Role of the Biosafety Cabinet in Preventing Infection in the Clinical Laboratory. Cureus. 2023 Dec:15(12):e51309. doi: 10.7759/cureus.51309. Epub 2023 Dec 29 [PubMed PMID: 38288229]
Burnett LC, Lunn G, Coico R. Biosafety: guidelines for working with pathogenic and infectious microorganisms. Current protocols in microbiology. 2009 May:Chapter 1(1):Unit 1A.1. doi: 10.1002/9780471729259.mc01a01s13. Epub [PubMed PMID: 19412909]
Level 3 (low-level) evidence